In his speech to members of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, Pope Francis said the interpretation of the Holy Scriptures cannot be only an individual scientific effort, but must always confront itself with, be inserted within and authenticated by the living tradition of the Church

The speech given by Francis to members of the Pontifical Biblical Commission this morning followed faithfully in the footsteps of his predecessor Benedict XVI teaching. Members of the Commission  scholars and theologians from all over the world gathered under the leadership of the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Mgr. Gerhard Müller - concluded a period of reflection on the theme: the inspiration and truth of the Bible. Benedict XVI had drawn attention to this during the 2008 Synod on Sacred Scripture.

The bottom line question revolves around the role of modern disciplines and scientific techniques  textual analysis, palaeographical analysis of texts, archaeological and historical discoveries, philological work on sources and so on  in the Church's interpretation of the Bible. The path outlined by Ratzinger, whilst not underestimating the value of scientific findings, reaffirmed the fact that one cannot truly understand the Bible and its texts unless it is through the eyes of faith, in the light of the Church's thousand-year-old history, whilst always taking into account the organic relationship between each of the Bible's books and the Bible as a whole and the message Christians find in it.

Francis clearly echoes this line of thought: The interpretation of the Holy Scriptures cannot be only an individual scientific effort, but must always confront itself with, be inserted within and authenticated by the living tradition of the Church. This norm is essential to specify the correct relationship between exegesis and the Magisterium of the Church, Francis said during today's audience.

Francis believes the Second Vatican Council reiterated with great clarity that there is an unbreakable unity between Scripture and Tradition, as both come from the same source... and are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence.

This is why, according to the Pope, every subjective interpretation is insufficient as simply limited to an analysis incapable of embracing the global meaning that has constituted the Tradition of the entire People of God. The interpretation of the Holy Scriptures cannot be only an individual scientific effort, but must always confront itself with, be inserted within and authenticated by the living tradition of the Church. This norm is essential to specify the correct relationship between exegesis and the Magisterium of the Church, Francis added.

At the same time, the Pope guarded against a literal reading of the sacred text, recalling that the Bible the testimony in written form of God's Word whereas the Word of God precedes and exceeds the Bible. Hence the Christian faith has at its centre not just a book but a history of salvation and especially a Person, Jesus Christ, the Word of God made flesh.

Tradition preserves the same and constant interpretation. Tradition was commanded by scripture itself.

It prevents what happens when tradition is discounted and everyone can make up their own interpretations. As evidence consider the state of protestant theology in the US at present ( or Europe for that matter ). If you look at raw numbers well over 60% now teach either abortion or same sex marriage are perfectly ok and its growing rapidly.

But orthodoxy holds that sound hermaneutics is the gatekeeper for doctrine, and that instrument is applied equally throughout orthodox Christianity. Truth be told, we could not give a rip about "protestant" theology. Whatever that is.

But that doesn't fly with Bible Believing churches, and our understanding of Scripture is remarkably consistent world-wide.

4
posted on 04/12/2013 5:56:37 PM PDT
by Salvavida
(The restoration of the U.S.A. starts with filling the pews at every Bible-believing church.)

“It prevents what happens when tradition is discounted and everyone can make up their own interpretations. As evidence consider the state of protestant theology in the US at present ( or Europe for that matter ). If you look at raw numbers well over 60% now teach either abortion or same sex marriage are perfectly ok and its growing rapidly.”

To reflect your words back to you...

Scripture preserves God’s truth from drift into all kinds of foolish pagan practices.

It prevents what happens when Scripture is discounted and any leader can make up new traditions - even ones that didn’t exist during the first one hundred years of Church history - and you end up with a situation where anything becomes tradition that invalidates the Word of God for the sake of traditions.

“As evidence consider the state of protestant theology in the US at present ( or Europe for that matter ). If you look at raw numbers well over 60% now teach either abortion or same sex marriage are perfectly ok and its growing rapidly.”

As evidence consider the state of the Roman Church worldwide, where regardless of what the church teaches, a huge number of members use birth control, get abortions and are perfectly ok with same sex marriage.

“Tradition preserves the same and constant interpretation. Tradition was commanded by scripture itself.”

I like Augustine’s tradition, and “Pope” Gregory the First. They’re not like Rome’s current teachers.

Pope Gregory the First, for example, says that the See of Peter is governed by three Bishops. Thus, the Bishops of Antioch, Alexandria and Rome all possess the throne of Peter.

Whereas there were many apostles, yet for the principality itself, one only see of the apostles prevailed, in authority, which is of one, but in three places. For he elevated the see in which he condescended to rest, and to finish his present life. He decorated the see, to which he sent his disciple the evangelist, and he established the see, in which, although he intended to leave it, he sat for seven years. Since there fore the see is of one and is one, over which three bishops preside by divine authority, whatsoever good I hear of you, I ascribe to myself. And if you hear any good of me, number it among your merits, be- cause we are all one in him who says, that all should be one, as thou, O Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they may be one in us.  In the Eulogy to the Bishop of Alexandria

Theodoret references the same belief when he places the throne of Peter under the Bishop of Antioch:

Dioscorus, however, refuses to abide by these decisions; he is turning the See of the blessed Mark upside down; and these things he does though he perfectly well knows that the Antiochene (of Antioch) metropolis possesses the throne of the great Peter, who was teacher of the blessed Mark, and first and coryphæus (head of the choir) of the chorus of the apostles. Theodoret - Letter LXXXVI - To Flavianus, Bishop of Constantinople.

Here is Augustine channeling the wicked Protestants, who in turn were just reading the scripture plainly:

CHAP. 38 [XIX.] WHAT IS THE VIEW OF THE PELAGIANS, AND WHAT OF THE SEMI-PELAGIANS, CONCERNING PREDESTINATION.
But these brethren of ours, about whom and on whose behalf we are now discoursing, say, perhaps, that the Pelagians are refuted by this apostolical testimony in which it is said that we are chosen in Christ and predestinated before the foundation of the world, in order that we should be holy and immaculate in His sight in love. For they think that having received Gods commands we are of ourselves by the choice of our free will made holy and immaculate in His sight in love; and since God foresaw that this would be the case, they say, He therefore chose and predestinated us in Christ before the foundation of the world. Although the apostle says that it was not because He foreknew that we should be such, but in order that we might be such by the same election of His grace, by which He showed us favour in His beloved Son. When, therefore, He predestinated us, He foreknew His own work by which He makes us holy and immaculate. Whence the Pelagian error is rightly refuted by this testimony. But we say, say they, that God did not foreknow anything as ours except that faith by which we begin to believe, and that He chose and predestinated us before the foundation of the world, in order that we might be holy and immaculate by His grace and by His work. But let them also hear in this testimony the words where he says, We have obtained a lot, being predestinated according to His purpose who worketh all things. [Eph. 1.11.] He, therefore, work-eth the beginning of our belief who worketh all things; because faith itself does not precede that calling of which it is said: For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance; [Rom. 11.29.] and of which it is said: Not of works, but of Him that calleth [Rom. 9.12.] (although He might have said, of Him that believeth); and the election which the Lord signified when He said: Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you. [John 15.16.] For He chose us, not because we believed, but that we might believe, lest we should be said first to have chosen Him, and so His word be false (which be it far from us to think possible), Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you. Neither are we called because we believed, but that we may believe; and by that calling which is without repentance it is effected and carried through that we should believe. But all the many things which we have said concerning this matter need not be repeated.

It is written in the Gospel, that when the mother and brethren of Christ, that is, his relations after the flesh, were announced to him, and waited without, not being able to approach him by reason of the crowd, he answered, Who is my mother, and who are my brethren and prompting to his disciples he said,  These are my brethren, and whosoever shall perform the will of my Father, he is my brother and mother and sister. What else did he teach us by this, but that we should prefer our spiritual to our carnal relationship, nor that men are therefore blessed because they are carnally related to righteous and holy men, but because they adhere to them by their obedience and their imitation of them in doctrines and morals. Mary, there fore, teas more blessed in adopting the faith of Christ, than in conceiving his flesh. For when some one said to him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, he answered,. Yea, rather blessed are they that hear the word of God and keep it. Lastly, what did that relation- hip profit his brethren, that is, his relations after the flesh, who did not believe in him i Thus also her maternal relationship would have profited Mary nothing, if she had not borne Christ more blessedly in her heart than in her flesh.  Upon Her Virginity

More against the Roman cult of Mary:

Wherefore when the Lord appeared wonderful in the midst of the crowd, working signs and wonders, and showing what was hidden in the flesh, certain persons admiring, said, Blessed is the womb that bare thee. But he answered, Verily blessed are they who hear the word of God and keep it. That is to say, My mother, whom thou hast called blessed, is thence blessed because she keeps the word of God, not because the Word was made flesh within her.  Tenth treatise on the second chap of Johns Gospel

Augustine explaining that he understands the eating and drinking of Christ as figurative:

If a passage is perceptive, and either forbids a crime or wickedness, or enjoins usefulness or charity, it is not figurative. But if it seems to command a crime or wickedness, or to forbid usefulness or kindness, it is figurative. Unless ye shall eat, he says, the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood, ye shall not have life in you. He appears to enjoin wickedness or a crime. It is a figure, therefore, teaching us that we partake of the benefits of the Lords passion, and that we must sweetly and profitably treasure up in our memories, that his flesh was crucified and wounded for us. The third book upon Christian Doctrine

More:

Jesus answered and said to him, This is the work of God, that ye believe in him whom he hath sent. To do this is to eat the meat which perishes not, but endures unto eternal life. Why do you prepare your teeth and your stomach ? Believe only and you will have eaten.  The 5th treatise upon the 6th chapter of the Gospel of John,

Against Peter being the Rock of the Church:

I have said in a certain passage respecting the apostle Peter, that the church is founded upon him as upon a rock. But I know that I have frequently afterwards so expressed myself, that the phrase  Upon this rock, should be understood to be the rock which Peter confessed. For it was not said to him, Thou art Petra, but, Thou art Petrus, for the rock, was Christ. Let the reader select which of these two opinions he deems the most probable.  The first book of his Retractions

Against Peter only receiving the Keys, and not all the Apostles:

It appears in many passages of Scripture that Peter represented the church, and particularly in that place where it is said, I give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven... For did Peter receive those keys, and did John and James and the other apostles not receive them? What was given to him, was given to the church. Therefore Peter represented the church, and the church was the body of Christ.  Serm. 149, upon the words of 10th ch. of Acts

Against only Peter being told to feed the sheep:

When it was said to him, Lovest thou me, Feed my sheep, it was said to all.  Upon the Christian Contest

Against Justification by Works:

All our good merits are only wrought in us by grace, and when God crowns our merits, he crowns nothing but his own gifts.  To Sextus, letter 194,

Against Images:

This is the chief cause of this mad impiety, that a figure resembling a living form operates more forcibly upon the feelings of these wretch ed men, than its being manifest that it is not living, and therefore that it ought to be despised by the living.  Exposition of the 113th Psalm.

Against intercession from dead Saints:

He is the High-priest who has now entered within the veil, and who alone of those who have appeared in the flesh, intercedes for us. As a figure of which, among the first people and in the first temple, the high-priest alone entered into the holy of holies, whilst all the people stood without.  On the 64lst Psm.

I could literally go on for a very long time with these.

So, I guess it depends on whose Tradition you want to listen to. The Catholics prior to 500-600AD, or the Romanists circa 2013, who are even still different from the Romanists prior to Vatican II.

As for me, I’ll just read the plain words of the scriptures as we are commanded to:

2Ti_2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

Because the scripture does not change with men, but is always useful for reproof, correction, doctrine, so that the man of God may be perfect:

2Ti 3:16-17 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: (17) That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

>>As evidence consider the state of protestant theology in the US at present ( or Europe for that matter ). If you look at raw numbers well over 60% now teach either abortion or same sex marriage are perfectly ok and its growing rapidly.

That means that 40% do not. The 60% figure is not growing rapidly, if that number is even accurate. You probably include the UMC in that 60%. Most people on FR do, but its not true. The UMC does not teach that either are ok.

But the RCC does not have a spotless history of perfect faith either. It has had its share of bad things in the last 1000 years. You know what they are, so there’s no need to rehash them.

The bottom line here is that the Word is for all believers. True, people need to be trained to do proper exegesis, but that does not require a professional. We all receive the same Holy Spirit and he works in each of us.

No sale, Francis. Tradition does not trump Scripture. The testimony of history shows us what happens when a few are "entrusted" with biblical interpretation. Francis, meet Roy Zuck, author, "Basic Bible Interpretation". It's everyone's responsibility. m

and we have 20,000 or so "denominations" to show how well that works....

I think you should evaluate "Tradition" in the light of what it actually means: that which has been handed on to us. This includes handed on in writing, handed on in oral preaching, and handed on by example.

Since this is the meaning, then the really important question is not "how was it handed on (preaching? writing? example?) but WHO handed it on.

If it was handed on by the Apostles, then it is past of the "treasury" of the Apostolic faith which we all must carefully observe.

St. Paul himself said that we should both heed his words (oral preaching), and be imitators of him --- his example.

1 Corinthians 4:16 Therefore I urge you to imitate me.

1 Thessalonians 1:6 You became imitators of us and of the Lord, for you welcomed the message in the midst of severe suffering with the joy given by the Holy Spirit.

1 Thessalonians 2:14 For you, brothers and sisters, became imitators of Gods churches in Judea, which are in Christ Jesus.

2 Thessalonians 3:9 We did this, not because we do not have the right to such help, but in order to offer ourselves as a model for you to imitate.

10
posted on 04/12/2013 6:51:36 PM PDT
by Mrs. Don-o
("He will come on that Day to judge the living and the dead, and the earth by fire.")

It prevents what happens when tradition is discounted and everyone can make up their own interpretations. As evidence consider the state of protestant theology in the US at present ( or Europe for that matter ). If you look at raw numbers well over 60% now teach either abortion or same sex marriage are perfectly ok and its growing rapidly.

Rather, the further churches depart from upholding the supremacy of Scripture as the authoritative literal word of God then the more liberal they become, thus evangelicals are much more conservative than their overall liberal Catholic counterparts: http://www.peacebyjesus.com/RC-Stats_vs._Evang.html<

And RC Bible scholarship itself is largely liberal . Meanwhile, "Tradition" in Scripture cannot be shown to be anything more than what was subsequently written, versus such traditions as praying to the departed. , etc.

11
posted on 04/12/2013 7:15:43 PM PDT
by daniel1212
(Come to the Lord Jesus as a contrite damned+destitute sinner, trust Him to save you, then live 4 Him)

"As evidence consider the state of the Roman Church worldwide, where regardless of what the church teaches, a huge number of members use birth control, get abortions and are perfectly ok with same sex marriage."

Dear AMorePerfectUnion: The teachings of the Catholic Church are to be evaluated according to their truth, and not their popularity.

Obliviously in the Catholic Church were a democracy, she would be teaching whatever is being taught by the ruling elites who control the law, the schools, and the mass media.

Nobody can plausibly conclude that the Catholic community is flawless. On the contrary, it is full of infidelity to its own teachings, darkened with dissent and loaded with sin. What the Church does have, though, is sound moral doctrine: which is precisely why it faces daily these relentless assaults from without and within.

We are in a situation --- predicted by Our Lord --- where the tares are growing thick in the field with the wheat; or, to use a different analogy, where the dragnet pulls in all kinds of fish, some of them pretty ugly. The Lord says the tares will not be gathered and burnt, nor the fish sorted, til the Day of Judgment. Until then, we cling to the truth which Christ teaches us through the Church.

I will be grateful--- grateful forever--- for this truth, which, battered and embattled on all sides, still stands.

Here's a thought experiment: As the others give way on one contested point after another --- civil divorce/remarriage, contraception, sterilization, indiscriminate WMD's, total lethal assaults on the conceived child, artificial reproductive technologies, the radical deconstruction of sex, gender, marriage and family --- 20 years from now, which Church, do you think, will still have the the same, sound, unchanged moral doctrines that Christianity preached 80 years ago, 150 years ago, 500 years ago?

Well?

13
posted on 04/12/2013 7:19:49 PM PDT
by Mrs. Don-o
("He will come on that Day to judge the living and the dead, and the earth by fire.")

He is speaking against textural criticism method and historical-critical method. He’s saying these methods ignore or cannot include Sacred Scripture as part of and in the context of where it came from and remains - the faith community of Christianity.

*8In his speech to members of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, Pope Francis said the interpretation of the Holy Scriptures cannot be only an individual scientific effort, but must always confront itself with, be inserted within and authenticated by the living tradition of the Church**

The same Augustine whom you would like to pretend rejected devotion to Mary wrote the following prayer:

Blessed Virgin Mary, who can worthily repay you with praise and thanks for having rescued a fallen world by your generous consent! Receive our gratitude, and by your prayers obtain the pardon of our sins. Take our prayers into the sanctuary of heaven and enable them to make our peace with God. Holy Mary, help the miserable, strengthen the discouraged, comfort the sorrowful, pray for your people, plead for the clergy, intercede for all women consecrated to God. May all who venerate you feel now your help and protection. Be ready to help us when we pray, and bring back to us the answers to our prayers. Make it your continual concern to pray for the people of God, for you were blessed by God and were made worthy to bear the Redeemer of the world, who lives and reigns forever. Amen

The path outlined by Ratzinger, whilst not underestimating the value of scientific findings, reaffirmed the fact that one cannot truly understand the Bible and its texts unless it is through the eyes of faith, in the light of the Church's thousand-year-old history, whilst always taking into account the organic relationship between each of the Bible's books and the Bible as a whole and the message Christians find in it.

Completely untrue...A lie to the followers of the Pied Piper...

The Piper knows that those who read and BELIEVE the bible ultimately leave the Catholic religion...

evangelicals are much more conservative than their overall liberal Catholic counterparts

Every liberal Protestant church today was once -- some within living memory! -- what you call "evangelical". Today they endorse abortion, homosexuality, and every sort of perversion. How can you prove to me that that's not the inevitable trajectory of /sola scriptura/ Christianity? It certainly has been so with the major European denominations that grew out of the reformation.

Even your allegedly "conservative" evangelical churches, without exception, permit divorce and remarriage, contraception, among other objectively immoral acts. (Study up on what Protestants said about contraception before 1930. Your teaching changed. Ours didn't.)

Absent tradition, each generation decides for itself what the Bible means. Unfortunately, it seems less and less likely that they'll get it even close to right.

“Written by Bishop Fulbert of Chartres (ca 951-ca 1029), it appears in his Sermo IX, De Annuntiatione Dominica. The prayer is sometimes attributed to St. Augustine, Book 10, Sermon 18, de Sanctis, since Bishop Fulbert’s sermon appeared in the collected works of St. Augustine at one time. However, it is now known that the sermon is not Augustine’s, but Bishop Fulbert’s.”

Technically, I didn’t state it flatly. I just quoted him as denying that Mary was more exalted than other believers. Of course, it doesn’t matter now. My reply to him showed that his quote of Augustine was from a medieval source. So, I can now say it flatly, and take his scorn.

If it was handed on by the Apostles, then it is past of the "treasury" of the Apostolic faith which we all must carefully observe.

Problem is: there is no evidence that this 'treasury' you claim is from the apostles is really from any apostles...In fact, your 'treasury' is contrary to what we 'observe' in the written record; the scriptures...

1 Corinthians 4:16 Therefore I urge you to imitate me.

1 Thessalonians 1:6 You became imitators of us and of the Lord, for you welcomed the message in the midst of severe suffering with the joy given by the Holy Spirit.

2Th 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

Paul told us to hold fast to the traditions that have been taught (past tense)...We certainly could not be followers of 'tradition' that would occur centuries into the future...

The scriptures give a pretty good description of what the apostles taught and how they acted to give us an example on what to follow...

Peter taught us that we don't bow down to an apostle or any religious figure...Paul taught us that the 'leader's are not to seek the important places like the head of the table or a 'throne', or to wear long robes...Paul taught us that the churches are the people who are the members of the 'Body', not the leadership...

Paul taught us that a Bishop has to have a wife and a good family...Paul taught us that homosexuals are not to be honored in the churches...And certainly would not be acceptable as Bishops or Elders or Pastors...

2Th 3:6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.

So this raises the question...Have all of the Catholic Parishes rejected and distanced themselves from every homosexual religious leader since the time of the apostles to the present??? Or the ones who wear long robes or sit in seats of thos of supposed stature, or any of the many other obvious violations of example laid out in the scriptures???

2Th 3:14 And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed.

I don't see where your religion follows after the traditions taught by the apostles hardly at all...

Your pointing me to your search results? Our thread appears right in there too. It’s interesting how often they appear on Catholic websites... without attribution of any kind to Bishop Fulbert or even to any kind of source. It’s probably a Catholic internet urban legend, brought on through much repetition.

We are in a situation --- predicted by Our Lord --- where the tares are growing thick in the field with the wheat; or, to use a different analogy, where the dragnet pulls in all kinds of fish, some of them pretty ugly. The Lord says the tares will not be gathered and burnt, nor the fish sorted, til the Day of Judgment. Until then, we cling to the truth which Christ teaches us through the Church.

This is another 'proof positive' that the real church is an invisible church...The tares will not be identified by anyone other than God...Same with the wheat...

It might appear so  because there were many more connections for St. Augustine than what you had.

LOL!”

You literally gave me a search result filled with all sorts of random links (including a link to our own thread) that quote and attribute the prayer to Augustine. I posted a link that points out that the original source of that prayer is the medeival Bishop Fulbert, not Augustine. It was falsely attributed to Augustine. This is a known fact. Try clicking on one of those links and looking for an actual source.

Once you are a Catholic — you are always a Catholic. You will have to answer for your absence when you die and meet the Meter of Justice, Jesus Christ and answer the question about why you left the one, holy, catholic and apostolic faith.

BTW, I don’t like your name at all. We are not “puny humans”; we are ALL made in the image and likeness of God.

The same Augustine whom you would like to pretend rejected devotion to Mary wrote the following prayer:

Blessed Virgin Mary, who can worthily repay you with praise and thanks for having rescued a fallen world by your generous consent! Receive our gratitude, and by your prayers obtain the pardon of our sins. Take our prayers into the sanctuary of heaven and enable them to make our peace with God. Holy Mary, help the miserable, strengthen the discouraged, comfort the sorrowful, pray for your people, plead for the clergy, intercede for all women consecrated to God. May all who venerate you feel now your help and protection. Be ready to help us when we pray, and bring back to us the answers to our prayers. Make it your continual concern to pray for the people of God, for you were blessed by God and were made worthy to bear the Redeemer of the world, who lives and reigns forever. Amen

Wherefore when the Lord appeared wonderful in the midst of the crowd, working signs and wonders, and showing what was hidden in the flesh, certain persons admiring, said, Blessed is the womb that bare thee. But he answered, Verily blessed are they who hear the word of God and keep it. That is to say, My mother, whom thou hast called blessed, is thence blessed because she keeps the word of God, not because the Word was made flesh within her.  Tenth treatise on the second chap of Johns Gospel

Quite a contradiction in thought there...How do you account for that???

“Once you are a Catholic  you are always a Catholic. You will have to answer for your absence when you die and meet the Meter of Justice, Jesus Christ and answer the question about why you left the one, holy, catholic and apostolic faith.”

He’ll probably tell me something like “Well Done, Good and Faithful servant, for not only did you die trusting in me instead of in the Catholic Church, but you also could tell the difference between a quote from Augustine and a medieval Catholic Bishop.”

Check out my reply to him, incase you missed it. Its from a medieval source (I posted a link), not actually from Augustine. The tipoff is that the language is way too advanced. You’ll also notice if you search the Catholic links, they usually end with “Amen” instead of a citation. It probably gets copied and pasted to the point that no one realizes it is not from Augustine.

Every liberal Protestant church today was once -- some within living memory! -- what you call "evangelical". Today they endorse abortion, homosexuality, and every sort of perversion. How can you prove to me that that's not the inevitable trajectory of /sola scriptura/ Christianity?

Every liberal Catholic and Catholic parish today was once -- some within living memory! -- what you call "traditional." Today those whom Rome counts and treats as members in life and in death (like Teddy K.) endorse abortion, homosexuality, etc. etc. And by so doing what Rome teaches by example speaks louder and more effectually than by her words.

How can you prove to me that that's not the inevitable trajectory of /sola scriptura/ Christianity?

Because they can have separated from both dead religion and liberal revisionism, and the evangelical movement began in response such revisionism, and which Rome evidences even in sanctioned Bible scholarship within your own official Bible (for America).

And unlike RCs who are stuck with the liberal majority of their members, we can separate, and so those who hold to the basic historical Protestant convictions on the Bible can and will continue to obey he command to "be ye separate, and touch not the unclean.." (2Cor. 6:17) And which class (if a remnant, as are conservative RCs), such show more concurrence in basic moral views and questions about core teachings than Catholics overall, and experience a remarkable unity of the Spirit that transcends denominations. Thus they are feared and attacked by both Rome and liberals.

Not all do, while any allowance for divorce can only be for fornication and possibly abandonment, (Mt. 19:9; 1Cor. 7:15) yet the Bible nowhere teaches that any consummated marriage contract was not a marriage, and the broad criteria for annulments potentially leaves many Catholics as living in fornication.

Nor does Scripture make celibacy a requirement to be a bishop/elder, among many contrasts btwn Rome and the NT church.

Meanwhile, those Rome treats as members in life and in death support and have more abortions than evangelicals, as well as other objectively immoral acts, and are not too far behind in practicing contraception. This is what Rome effectually fosters, regardless of her token conservative words. It is when liberal RCs become conservative evangelicals that real concern is shown for their souls, as now they are a threat to Rome's preeminence.

However, i will allow that modern evangelicals overall missed the boat on contraception, partly due to overreaction to the past idea that even marital relations were unclean (as some "CFs" held) and what flowed from that, as well as ignorance that they can act as abortifacients (and i now see Firefox does not even have that word in its spell check dictionary) and which needs to be corrected.

Yet this do not prevent evangelicals from being against contraception in concurring with classic Protestant views, and it is a direction i (and even the NY Times ) see many moving towards.

If you are going to marry, i would advise being like Old-Order Amish communities in which all types of artificial birth control are forbidden, but not go so far as to reject any varieties of natural family planning.

There is a principle in Scripture in which their are consequences to physical pleasure which require responsibility and temperance, and to try to have you cake and eat it too will have negative consequences.

And on a side note, the use of contraception among consevatives overall likely cost them the last election.

41
posted on 04/13/2013 6:25:04 AM PDT
by daniel1212
(Come to the Lord Jesus as a contrite damned+destitute sinner, trust Him to save you, then live 4 Him)

Every liberal Protestant church today was once -- some within living memory! -- what you call "evangelical". Today they endorse abortion, homosexuality, and every sort of perversion. How can you prove to me that that's not the inevitable trajectory of /sola scriptura/ Christianity?

Every liberal Catholic parish today was once -- some within living memory! -- what you call "traditional." And today those whom Rome counts and treats as members in life and in death (like Teddy K.) endorse abortion, homosexuality, etc. etc. And by so doing what Rome teaches by example speaks louder and more effectually than by her words. "Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. " (James 2:18)

How can you prove to me that that's not the inevitable trajectory of /sola scriptura/ Christianity?

Because they can and have separated from both dead religion and liberal revisionism, and the evangelical movement began in response such revisionism, and which Rome evidences even in sanctioned Bible scholarship within your own official Bible (for America).

And unlike RCs who are stuck with the liberal majority of their members, we can separate, and so those who hold to the basic historical Protestant convictions on the Bible can and will continue to obey the command to "be ye separate, and touch not the unclean.." (2Cor. 6:17)

And which class (if a remnant, as are conservative RCs), such show more concurrence in basic moral views and questions about core teachings than Catholics overall, and experience a remarkable unity of the Spirit that transcends denominations. Thus they are feared and attacked by both Rome and liberals.

I challenge you to show where evangelicals favor "other objectively immoral acts" more than Catholics. As for divorce, not all do, such as the Protestant Reformed Churches in America, which believes that marriage is a lifelong bond and that, although an individual may divorce his or her spouse for continued infidelity, the marriage bond is not dissolved apart from death. Hence, neither party is permitted to remarry while the other person is still living. Those who do divorce and remarry while their first spouse is still alive are considered adulterers, regardless of the circumstances of the divorce. (Source ) Any allowance for divorce can only be for fornication and possibly abandonment, (Mt. 19:9; 1Cor. 7:15) and RC "Pauline Privilege" and Petrine Privilege can be interesting). and there are over eight million divorced and remarried Catholics in the US.

Yet the Bible nowhere teaches that any consummated marriage contract was not a marriage, and the broad criteria for annulments (over 60,00 in the US) potentially leaves many Catholics as living in fornication.

Nor does Scripture make celibacy a requirement to be a bishop/elder, among many contrasts btwn Rome and the NT church.

Meanwhile, those whom Rome treats as members in life and in death both support and have more abortions than evangelicals, as well as support other objectively immoral acts, and are not too far behind in practicing contraception. This is what Rome effectually fosters, regardless of her token conservative words. It is when liberal RCs become conservative evangelicals that real concern is shown for their souls, as now they are a threat to Rome's preeminence.

However, i will allow that modern evangelicals overall missed the boat on contraception, partly due to overreaction to the past idea that even marital relations were unclean (as some "CFs" held) and what flowed from that, as well as ignorance that they can act as abortifacients (and i now see Firefox does not even have that word in its spell check dictionary) and which needs to be corrected.

Yet this does not prevent evangelicals from being against contraception in concurring with classic Protestant views, and it is a direction i (and even the NY Times ) see many moving towards.

If one are going to marry, i would advise being like Old-Order Amish communities in which all types of artificial birth control are forbidden, but not go so far as to reject any varieties of natural family planning.

There is a principle in Scripture in which their are consequences to physical pleasure which require responsibility and temperance, and to try to have you cake and eat it too will have negative consequences.

And on a side note, the use of contraception among consevatives overall likely cost them the last election.

42
posted on 04/13/2013 7:03:41 AM PDT
by daniel1212
(Come to the Lord Jesus as a contrite damned+destitute sinner, trust Him to save you, then live 4 Him)

Well, aMPU, the fact is I didn't MISS the whole point of your article: actually, I mostly agreed with it . That's why I went on to make a whole rootin-tootin 'nother point of my own :o) But let me comment now on your good points:

"Scripture preserves Gods truth from drift into all kinds of foolish pagan practices."

Absolutely true. That's why the preservation, collection, translation, publication, interpretation and proclamation of Scripture has always been the vital concern the Church. It's been one of the Church's principle tasks over the past 20 centuries. That's why any of us is able to have a Bible in his hands to this very day. Phenomenal, isn't it?

"It prevents what happens when Scripture is discounted and any leader can make up new traditions - even ones that didn't exist during the first one hundred years of Church history - and you end up with a situation where anything becomes tradition that invalidates the Word of God for the sake of traditions."

Absolutely true once again. This preoccupation we have with Scripture HAS prevented erroneous teachers from making up new traditions which invalidate the Word of God.

If you look at the 21 Ecumenical Councils, for instance, beginning with the Council of Jerusalem as reported in Acts, you will see that these Councils protected the Church by striking down erroneous traditions. Note that many of these heresies were being promoted by dissenting clergy and had hundreds of thousands of enthusiastic followers. But the Church had to battle these wolves-in-shepherds'-clothing and reinforce the unchanged Faith as handed down to us by the Apostles.

Extend this Chart all the way down to the 20th century: the Church has always had to face and combat the roar of dissenting voices, the "Spirit of the Age," the exceedingly popular heresies.

As evidence consider the state of protestant theology in the US at present (or Europe for that matter ). If you look at raw numbers well over 60% now teach either abortion or same sex marriage are perfectly ok and its growing rapidly.

Exactly. They have their own conferences every couple of years or every decade or so, not to refute the heresies, but to adopt them. (Who knows what the Episcopalians will come up with next??)

"As evidence consider the state of the Roman Church worldwide, where regardless of what the church teaches, a huge number of members use birth control, get abortions and are perfectly ok with same sex marriage."

This is where you need to take another look, because this is not evidence for your claim, but counter-evidence. Namely, here you're dealing with a Church which still has its pure doctrine -- FOR the truths of Scripture, AGAINT birth control, AGAINST abortions, AGAINST the deconstruction of sex, gender and marriage --- and still has to fight the usual opponents, i.e. dissenting clergy and their millions of enthusiastic supporters.

Today the heresies center, not on the nature of God, but on the nature of Man. The dispute isn't about whether Christ had a human nature, but whether "human nature" even exists.

Find another Church which hasn't given in, hasn't changed its doctrines to accommodate serial polygamy (divorce/remarriage), onanism (contracepted sex), sodomy (perverted sex acts, whether by homosexuals or heterosexuals), infanticide (abortion, even in the so-called "hard cases"). Find me another Church with clear-cut doctrines against human embryo experimentation and manipulation; against alternative reproductive technologies; against euthanasia and the intentional programming of death.

Well?

And I still like you too ;oD

43
posted on 04/13/2013 7:48:05 AM PDT
by Mrs. Don-o
("He will come on that Day to judge the living and the dead, and the earth by fire.")

Really nice post. Often on FR, the number of “protestant” denominations is bandied about as if that disproves something. Your post lays out clearly that separation from cancer leads away from error and toward truth.

Instead of continually institutionalizing the accretion of errors, rites, continually adding new “authoritative traditions”, pagan practices, etc., it is far, far better to pursue Christ in purity and simplicity, and often this involves separation.

I will readily admit, some churches have split over silly issues - and I don’t believe they honored God. Most splits appear to be over theological issues.

This condemnation, indeed, seems to have been providentially promulgated as though with a special view to the fraud of those who, contriving to dress up a heresy under a name other than its own, get hold often of the works of some ancient writer, not very clearly expressed, which, owing to the very obscurity of their own doctrine, have the appearance of agreeing with it, so that they get the credit of being neither the first nor the only persons who have held it. This wickedness of theirs, in my judgment, is doubly hateful: first, because they are not afraid to invite others to drink of the poison of heresy; and secondly, because with profane breath, as though fanning smouldering embers into flame, they blow upon the memory of each holy man, and spread an evil report of what ought to be buried in silence by bringing it again under notice

St. Vincent Lerin 300's.... as it was in the beginning is now...Nothing ever changes does it.....Thanks for the additional Augustine quotes...

OK, first, I’m glad we are friends, though disagreeing on some things, but agreeing on many, many things. :-)

“Namely, here you’re dealing with a Church which still has its pure doctrine — FOR the truths of Scripture, AGAINT birth control, AGAINST abortions, AGAINST the deconstruction of sex, gender and marriage -— and still has to fight the usual opponents, i.e. dissenting clergy and their millions of enthusiastic supporters.”

I will only respond in this way...

What good is it to pretend that most members actually believe and are Christians, when they WIDELY reject the teaching of the church in practice? .

What results is truth mixed with heresy and pagan practice that becomes a buffet. You can argue that the Church is teaching many truths, but if a tree falls in the forest and nobody hears it fall - or rather, the fall of the tree is ignored not only by the whole world, but by the very membership it claims - what difference does it make?

To whit (always wanted to say that)...

In my local area, I attend a local church that has grown from about 5,000 members who show up every weekend to worship God, and serve others all week to more than 13,000 members who do the same. That membership number includes 5 churches planted during the past 7 years. Most of these people began life far from God, failed, were invited by a friend to come, were welcomed and accepted, attended, came to a point where they entrusted themselves to Christ for salvation, decided to follow him and want to honor him with their lives. In other words, these are not just people who showed up here from other churches. These are tattooed, worldly people, much like those Christ came to heal, and like those mentioned in the Bible, see their failure and deep need and WANT HIM.

I write none of that to say big is better, etc. Just to contrast with what follows...

My neighbors, nice couple we do things socially with and enjoy, who are sincere Roman Catholics, and I believe are true believers, go to a local church that has a “membership roll” of about 2600 - the vast majority of who never show up at church (about 300 show up) - let alone weekly, but are counted as members. Again, nothing wrong with the number, but with the impact in members lives. As this local RC church shrinks, I have to ask, does it have a pulse? If it is not growing, is it really alive with His new life? I simply do not know the answers. I am raising questions only.

Now, for the Round Robin Quick Round:

“Find another Church which hasn’t given in, hasn’t changed its doctrines to accommodate serial polygamy (divorce/remarriage)”

I find “annulment for so many reasons after exchanging vows to be identical in practical terms to divorce/remarriage. Say what you will about what the Church believes, I don’t find it in the lives of the majority of the membership. Heck, you can find lots of RCs around the world shacking up after divorce. So, yea, teaching is great, but if it doesn’t lead people to abandon their own worthiness by works, entrust themselves to His Gospel of Grace alone, and live a changed life, you are talking about abortion of the truth.

Again, culturally, it appears RC members have largely come to accept this - at least in surveys. Mainline Protestant churches (that are shrinking and merging to share expenses), seem to accept it. Evangelicals that are true to His Word do not. Admittedly, you can probably find some members of every church that accept cultural norms. To the degree that members do not know His Word and accept it as the Word of God, is the degree to which they believe whatever feels good.

“infanticide -abortion, even in the so-called “hard cases”

Same.

“Find me another Church with clear-cut doctrines against human embryo experimentation and manipulation; against alternative reproductive technologies; against euthanasia and the intentional programming of death.”

Sure. BUT, show me a membership that actually lives out that teaching. Teaching is great. If it doesn’t make disciples who have learned “to obey all I commanded you”, may I ask what difference it is making? THAT was the Great and Final Commission Christ commanded. The Church must preserve the truth, but it isn’t to be a time capsule. It is to make disciples.

Now, please realize I am not JUST saying this about the Roman Church. I would say the identical things about ANY Church, if they are true but you are asking specifically about the Roman Church.

As an add on here at the end, I have to note that I disagree with some of your explanations. I find plenty of examples of Catholic practice that adopted/adapted pagan practice and made it into accepted tradition. Let’s set that aside.

" Paul told us to hold fast to the traditions that have been taught (past tense)... not be followers of 'tradition' that would occur centuries into the future..."

The Catholic Church's doctrines are not traditions invented or manufactured centuries into the future.

We do, as Paul commanded, "stand fast, and hold the traditions" ---capital-T "Traditions" ---which we have received from Apostolic teachings. E.g., the Nicene Creed, a capital-T Tradition which summarizes, interprets and applies the teachings we have from the Apostles.

The Scriptures are a major part of this: written Tradition. Paul said to observe what they wrote, what they preached, and their example.

Now, think of this. Christ taught His disciples for 40 days between His Resurrection and His Ascension into heaven. But we don't have 40 more books, 40 chapters, or even 40 sentences about this teaching. St. John the Evangelist says if it all were written down, the earth itself would not be big enough to hold all the books.

But (see John, Chapters 14-16 especially) Christ did say that that "the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things ... will remind you of everything I have said to you ...will testify about me...He will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come."

This was Christ's promise to us. If we look to what the earliest Christians preached and practiced, we will see truths that came, not from them,but from the Holy Spirit, Who has always been with Christ's Church.

Scripture calls the Church, "the pillar and foundation of the Truth." The Church's doctrines do not negate the truths of Scripture, but rather defend, interpret, and apply them.

"Peter taught us that we don't bow down to an apostle or any religious figure..."

Right: we are to adore nobody other than God. This doesn't exclude showing honor to others. Scripture itself shows people bowing down to, even prostrating before, angels, and honored visitors, Moses, Saul, David, their own parents --- and not sinfully, but with the approval of God Check out 200+ Biblical examples here (Link)

Although we are to "adore" only God, they understood that we may "honor" other human beings, especially those who represent God's authority over us.

Jesus' warnings about pride did not mean that nobody should wear a robe, or that nobody should sit in the front, but that people should not be motivated by personal prestige. They should not love honors, even if they rightfully receive them. Jesus said:

Luke 11:43 Woe to you Pharisees, because you love the most important seats in the synagogues and respectful greetings in the marketplaces."

I've never seen any church of any sort that didn't have the preacher or pastor in the front of the room, or that didn't greet him respectfully. But they are not to love prestige.

"Paul taught us that the churches are the people who are the members of the 'Body', not the leadership..."

[I presume you mean not "just" the leadership!]Yes, that's right: the Church is the people of God. That's what Catholics are taught.

"Paul taught us that a Bishop has to have a wife and a good family..."

'Has to"? Interesting. Did Paul have a wife? (For that matter, did Jesus?) No. So presumably a leader of the Church, if he were married should be the husband of only one wife, and children who were well-raised. It doesn't mean they HAD TO have a wife. Paul himself repeatedly recommended remaining unmarried (Link).

"Paul taught us that homosexuals are not to be honored in the churches...And certainly would not be acceptable as Bishops or Elders or Pastors..."

The Catholic Church teaches this too.

"So this raises the question...Have all of the Catholic Parishes rejected and distanced themselves from every homosexual religious leader since the time of the apostles to the present??? "

No. In these cases, people had the true Catholic doctrine, and -- because of their slackness or rebellion --- failed to follow it. This is sin: they dissent or depart from what Christ teaches us through the Catholic Church!

Christ told us that there will be tares growing amidst the wheat until the end of time, when the Angels will come and separate the to, and cast the tares into the fire to be burned.

No one should use this as a reason to attack the Church itself. It would be like abandoning the Lord and the Apostles, because most of the Apostles betrayed, denied, or abandoned Him. Yes, they sinned. And yes, they were the Lord's select men. And they--- other than Judas --- later repented and led His flock.

That's the drama of the Church through the centuries, over and over again: betrayal, denial, sin; repentance, restoration, redemption.

48
posted on 04/13/2013 10:09:33 AM PDT
by Mrs. Don-o
(" If they refuse to listen even to the Church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.")

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.